Women and Social Movements

When going through McGirr's work part of her second chapter struck me as very similar to a book that was assigned for HIS502. (I really hope I'm getting the book right because I remember the concept) I believe it was Southern Cross by Christine Leigh Heyrman. In Southern Cross the first members of the nuclear family to accept the rising fundamentalist beliefs of the bible belt were the wives and mothers. These individuals then had the task of convincing their husbands, who held the real power, to join these congregations. In McGirr's second chapter she describes something similar in which women became involved in the conservative movement and would then bring in their husbands. (p. 87) It raises an interesting question as to the nature of social movements, particularly those with a religious aspect which both Heyrman's and McGirr's certainly had. Perhaps the influence of women play a larger role than is shown even in modern scholarship?

Reagan: JFK = Karl Marx

1. I'm glad that McGirr didn't compromise her integrity by playing the stupid "fair and balanced" game of braindead "impartiality." It seems that she has attached words like "tirade" to at least half of the quotes from conservatives in the book, and she's not afraid to make these people look like the idiots they were. Good for her.

2. Not much pigment in that cover photo, huh?

3. On a related note: McGirr's treatment of race is a bit funky. Throughout the book, she says several times that OC conservatives weren't as obsessed with race as conservatives in other parts of the country, largely because the OC was essentially all white. She even creates this odd geography where race is important on a north-south axis, but not an east-west axis. (14-15) Umm . . . doesn't that geography privilege a very particular way of looking at race (ie as a southern or southern and northern urban problem)? And moreover, who says that race isn't an issue just because black people aren't around? White people are raced, and so the lovely little middle class bubble that these people exist in is a racial space. Further, the move away from anticommunist hysteria to "law and order" hysteria among these conservatives is deeply impacted by race. It's striking that McGirr is comfortable suggesting that race was at the heart of the conservatism of the (working class, ethnic) Reagan Democrats, but is much less comfortable with attributing those kind of motivations to her better educated, more WASP-ish subjects in OC.

4. Although Reagan may have called JFK a commie in 1959 (189), the Professor Brothers disagree:

McGirr

Have a mixed opinion about this book. One of my biggest concerns about "Suburban Warriors" was about the grassroots nature of the movement. McGirr claims that this was largely a social movement, but I keep finding examples of her pointing out how either the party or other establishment members who came down from on high and helped teach the individuals about the truths of conservatism....I didn't get a really good feel about the agency of the individuals in beginning the "new american right". There is ample evidence about how grassroots efforts helped to bring change in various levels of government, but in terms of its origins....McGirr seems to reserve this for the "big businessmen, politicians, and intellectuals". (70-71,98)

Despite this, I found McGirr's analysis of the make up of the Orange County population and the gradual creation of its demography pretty effective. Although, she brings in a regional analysis of Orange County in comparison with the rest of the country, but does little else in framing how this population is representative of the rest of the country.

Suburban Warriors

In the back of my mind while reading this book, I was trying to assess the question of whether or not this was a social movement like the ones that we have been reading about. It might be easy to write these Orange County conservatives off as a bunch of crazies from the sidelines of politics as was suggested that the Liberals did at that time, but McGirr certainly proves that they were much more than that. I’d like to say they were a social movement based upon the information provided for Orange County, but the hesitation comes from not knowing how representative this trend is for the country as a whole. There had to be differences in the kinds of conservatives that existed throughout the country, unless I am misinterpreting the whole thing. Is it that there were the hard core types of conservatives in Orange County, but Republicans generally elsewhere?

Also, I’d like to know what those Orange County residents who stayed with the Democratic Party felt about all of this activism in their area and how strong was the Democratic Party in California. McGirr did say that overall there were more Democrats and Republicans, but she makes it sound as though the Democrats were powerless to prevent conservative growth. My Italian (like really Italian-born in Italy and came over on a boat), Catholic, staunch Democratic Great-grandparents moved to Costa Mesa, CA during the immediate postwar years to retire and I cannot help to think that they would have been appalled by these activists and the way that they were influencing local governments. It would be interesting to know how people like them, in a sense outsiders, felt amid this conservative society. McGirr makes the early work by the conservatives sound fanatical and intense that it could have been unsettling for those who did not agree with their views.

It ain't easy bein right.

I'm not surprised that this book isn't a class favorite but I've found myself looking at McGirr's work with a kind of sympathetic contempt. It is a tale of a political movement against an embedded and growing ideology, with strong federal power and social upheaval. Now maybe part of my pity comes from the fact that I have read Conscience of a Conservative and as I recall, it struck me as fairly reasonable compared to the criticism normally heard of conservativism. What I found particularly important to McGirr's work is the attachment of the social factors linked to what conservatives were arguing for. What I had hoped for though was a larger analysis of the contradictions of the conservative movement and those of the liberal movement solely for some inserted logic. I will applaud McGirr however for situating the conservative movement in the context of motivations and grassroots action in a period of social movements. I don't agree with the bulk of the conservative movement or the implications of their issues, but I can certainly support fighting the government if for no other reason than entertainment.

say this, mean that

Suburban Warriors provides a good deal of insight into the early days of the conservative movement as well as tracing its ideological and political evolution over a number of years. However, as I was not all that familiar with the conservative movement prior to reading this book, McGirr has left me questioning its essence. She paints the early conservatism as a primarily reactionary and often times paranoid movement which was afraid of change and social progress. She repeatedly concedes that this was not necessarily always case, but her evidence seems to overwhelming point to this conclusion. At numerous points in the book McGirr seems to attempt to balance out her narrative by saying things that downplay the often extremist tone of the movement but then dedicates substantial block quotes to these extremist voices. At best her tone comes across a bit naïve, at worst it betrays a degree of dishonesty. If her view is that conservatism was primarily extremist, in nature then she should make that case. However, if she believes that the extremist element was marginal, than she should provide evidence in support of that premise. It seems as though she is attempting to draw certain conclusions beneath the surface of her main narrative.

Value of a book on Conservatives?

I too have no interest in Conservatives, but I think there a lot that can be gained from reading a text like this.


To quote the Art of War:

"So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself."

-Sun Tzu

McGirr Discussion Questions

Historiography:

In light of our readings on postwar liberalism does McGirr sufficiently show how the people of Orange County, CA were members of a social movement? And comparing this reading to the others we have read on liberalism how do conservatives compare to liberals as activists? How were their goals different or the same? Also their tactics? Their motivations? And does McGirr's book change the way we approach, or think about, social movements?

History:

If we could place the citizens of Orange County in other readings on the postwar period what role would they play? In Self, Cohen and Sugrue for example. How do we evaluate McGirr's use of terminology? She stated in the introduction how she labeled the conservatives in the narrative, does she adequately draw lines of distinction between the ideology of the Right? Are there problems with who she labeled as Right, Far Right, etc? How does this terminology influence McGirr's analysis? Can we characterize the people that eventually made up the Right as merely reactionaries to the changes in America, or was their "activism" based more on ideology?

McGirr

This book was difficult to get through for me due to a lack of interest in post 1950s US and conservatives, but upon finishing it I was left with a few questions.  McGirr presents anti-communism sentiments as one of the rallying factors behind the movement in Orange County.  I'm wondering how unique this was in the most heated decade of the Cold War.  Wasn't almost everyone in America anti-communist at this time? Why was Orange County different? How many other counties were there groups of extreme capitalists where a conservative movement did not occur?  Additionally, McGirr fails to really delve into the beliefs and goals of this conservative movement until well over halfway through the work.  When I sit down to read a book on a conservative movement, it would have been helpful to know what the movement was really about before this point. 

Limits of Empire

Several times in McMahon's work, he refers to an instance of "almost racism." I would only suggest that McMahon could have elaborated on these instances as I believe they have an important role to play in discussions of South East Asia. Specifically, McMahon makes references to condescension by Americans to those living in South East Asia. It is my belief that assumptions of racial inferiority are linked deeply to this kind of interventionist policy that borders on colonialism. Consideration of these racial perception seems entirely left out from McMahon's book with the exception of a few pompous military officers. I am only curious as to how crucial this aspect actually was to understanding U.S. foreign policy in SEA.

role of the presidents

While reading this book one of the main points by McMahon was the differences in strategies and ideas used by each President from FDR to Ford. This got me wondering about the affects of having so many different plans while trying to stabilize an entire region. As we inaugurated each new President, he introduced a new course of action for dealing with the communist threat. From Truman and military aid to JFK sending in more advisors, it seems that every 4-8 years the US would adopt an entirely new plan. Can we describe the effects of such a system as helping us ensure that we can adapt quickly to new problems or was it a detriment as no plan was fully completed and each revision costed more time and money?

Finally I was thinking about our discussion from a few weeks back about combining the history of the Civil Rights Movement with that of the Cold War. According to McMahon do we see any evidence that the actions in Southeast Asia and the ones at home influenced each other? The seems to be little evidence in this book that government officials at home connected any of these events together. When Sukarno does visit the United States he seems much more interested in viewing examples of American wealth and celebrity in Hollywood and Disneyland then in looking at actual American cities and the divisions between them.

Limits of Empire

While reading this book, I couldn't help, but think of one of Foucault's ideas about power. (Essentially, his idea if you make something illegal or attempt to regulate it that you will create some sort of resistance.) There are several examples from his preface onwards that indirectly point to this concept, but one of the more convincing instances for me was his discussion of the Philippines. He writes "Manila looked to Washington as the chief guarantor of its security against external and internal threats, as an indispensable trading partner, and as a source of jobs, economic aid, and technical assistance. Yet the more the Philippines needed the United States . . . the more Philippine resentment . . . grew." (92)

Another comment that I have is that McMahon appropriately comments on the differences and conflicts between Beijing and Moscow on foreign policy such as on page sixty-six. However, I wonder if he stresses this point enough throughout the narrative? Does it matter for this narrative that he does or does not stress the fact that there were serious ideological differences between the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China? I think someone posted this already, but has recent scholarship expanded on this kind of multi-nation approach to U.S. policy during the Cold War?

The Limits of Empire

I would like to congratulate Robert McMahon for being the only author thus far that we have read that I have not accepted what he was trying to establish in his introduction. Most works I am willing to buy into what is needed to consider a book successful or not; this book turned me off at page xi. The offending passage stated “the strategic fears that proved instrumental to the creation of America’s Cold War empire in Southeast Asia seem, in retrospect, to have been grossly exaggerated” (xi). McMahon goes on to say that these fears were resting on “illusory, worst-case scenarios about impending strategic and economic disasters than on careful calculations of the “real” interests and threats at stake.”

How does McMahon or even the leaders during the Cold War know what was going to happen in Southeast Asia? There was no guarantee that the outcome that occurred would have been the same had the action not been taken by each successive president to intervene in Southeast Asia. While he does come up with valid sources, like on page 184 with the quote from the assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, which do say that U.S. interest in SEA was “overstated,” but that does not mean that all government officials believed that. If one looks more closely at the source, it is from a hearing before the "special subcommittee on investigations of the house committee on international relations" in 1976 (253). What else is a government official from the Ford administration, who has allowed Vietnam to go Communist, going to say at a subcommittee hearing for the Democratically controlled congress?

Overall, things like these points make me skeptical, but I could be interpreting this point very wrong so please feel free to disagree.

limits of empire questions

1) Does McMahon place too much emphasis on the US aid programs? Does he ignore how the money was used or other aid programs used? It seems as if he simply describes the US throwing money into various countries blindly without giving the reader an understanding of how these programs were used. In the appendix section charts are given showing the amount of money given as part of US aid as well as each individual country's imports and exports. Can we attribute the rise in nations exports to a growing economy or was the US aid simply propping these economies up?

2) Can we draw any parallels between the failure of US interventions in Asia with more current affairs in the Middle East? Why was the US so concerned with not having a country be called communist that they missed opportunities to gain real relationships with some of the communist leaders who were often the best option for a ruler? How much of our failures can be blamed on the fact that we often supported candidates who were not the best choices and did not have the majority support, just because they were democratic and loyal to US interests?

Questions

History: The author says that this book covers the rise and fall of the American empire in SEA. So how and why does American power fall in SEA?

Historiography:
Does this book say anything drastically different than has been said before? Is this just a common argument, or at least seem that way 11 years after it was published?

One Presidency to the next

As several other people have already said, I would have to agree that I was skeptical when I began this book due to the time span that it covers. One thing that I came to be impressed with was the way that McMahon managed to transition between the presidents and the policymakers. I also really enjoyed how each administration viewed what was going on and how they felt about the world at the time. One example of this is on page 45 when McMahon explains the Truman administrations apprehension about Southeast Asia.
The differences between administrations was sometimes quite blatant. The Eisenhower administration dealt more with Soviet threats then those before them, we got to see differences and similarities.

Questions

1. What is the meaning of the term "empire" he uses in this book.

How do we understand the term in relation with the US policy changes in SEA and in the context of pre-war imperialism and post-war situations?

Now, we can say the US is not an empire in Southeast and Northeast Asia?

If we cannot call the US an empire in the region, what factors and changes made that difference?

Were there any fundamental differences in the role of the US between the two times when it is was an empire and when it was not an empire in the context of SEA history?

Where was the US empire in SEA? Which South East Asian country can we call the part of the US empire?

2. If we put gender issues on this history? This history would be interpreted differently?

Sociopsychological factor that heavily infuenced the US policy makers can be seen as a jingoes' passion for manhood?

Should we just interpret the US policies which governed SEA as a way to build a defensive empire which was the product of America's fears?(221)

For whom the bell tolls?

Whenever I read this kind of diplomatic history of world powers, I feel angry about what Western powers did for themselves without serious consideration on other nations’ future, in this book, especially SEA nations. For whom did they, especially the U.S., try to stabilize SEA? For whom did they divide Vietnam and Korea by two states? For world peace? Pax Americana? Someone (I do not remember who) said that Pax Romana was a peace only for the Roman Empire, specifically the city of Rome, and so did Pax Americana. That was not even stability that they had created. Koreans had war in our own lands, and even though almost 60 years have passed from the war, we are still living with a bit of tension.

In For whom the bell tolls, Robert sacrificed himself for the democracy of the Spanish. I think, however, the love between him and Maria was more important than the noble cause and he should have survived and been happy with Maria for a long time. Without happiness of the common people, no nation can be happy. Democracy without happiness of the people is extremely pointless. For whom did the U.S. protect democracy? For whom did it try to create a more stable and prosperous world order? (218) At the least it was not for the South-East Asian people. Before World War II, western powers colonized and exploited the region, and after the war they tried to control it to protect their lands, their own democracy, and their people. They thought, by doing so, that world peace would be achieved and everybody would be happy. In actuality, they could not even make their own people happy (remember the civil rights movement!) The western powers also killed a great number of people in the Vietnam wars. Vietnamese are still suffering from the aftermath of the wars like Koreans.

For whom did they ring the bell? For what did Robert die at the bridge? Where is a more stable and prosperous world order they tried to make? Probably that is not in South Asia, one of the poorest regions in the world.

I think we can find something in this phrase; “any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. Therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.” (John Donne)

Pleasantly surprised

I'd have to agree with Megan about being skeptical at first with McMahon's book. Given the geographic and temporal scope of the book, I went with some low standards. I really appreciated the context in which McMahon placed US intervention. A few issues came to mind. First off, I'm not sure about anyone else, but I found McMahon's characterization of FDR somewhat idealistic, while his interpretation of Truman was a little jaded. He calls FDR's postwar anti-colonial policy w/W Europe quite optimistic, but when Truman unexpectedly becomes president, the "nuance, complexity and conditionality" of FDR's approach was lost. Truman was "unaware" (p.19) and "insecure" (27). While Truman was by no means, a bastion of omniscience, I think McMahon's unduly optimistic of how FDR would have handled things.

Another interesting comment McMahon made was about the US foreign advisors' sophistication (45). He gives US officials enough credit in understanding that the US couldn't blame Moscow or Beijing for the situations arisings in SE Asia. I remember seeing the documentary "Fog of War" with Robert McNamara and he said something that I think contradicts the "savvy" of US intelligence officials. Years after the Vietnam War, he visited the country and met with many of his former enemies. One thing they repeatedly exhorted him on was that, "You [McNamara] don't remember our history." Vietnam was violently opposed to direct Chinese Communist supremacy in their country. Therefore, despite Ho Chi Minh's Communist leanings, they would never have been "puppets" to China. By no means would this info have necessarily had any decisive change of action, but it does help to question the sophistication of US intelligence in SE Asia.

Psych!

McMahon's treatment of the psychology of US decision makers is a bit weird. Decisions on SE Asia were driven by fears that lie "within the realm of social psychology." (221) Yet throughout the book, there are examples of people who seem unaffected by these fears, like LBJ's undersecretary of state George Ball, who argued for cutting losses and getting out of Vietnam when his colleagues were arguing for an increased commitment. (118) Yet apart from calling Ball "savvy," McMahon gives no hint as to why Ball would be immune to the kind of group psychology that had gripped everyone else. Were McNamara, Bundy and the rest just not "savvy?" Was Ball's stance just some sort of fluke? Or was there some substantive difference between these people that might explain why they came to such different conclusions?

McMahon.

I was a little skeptical upon beginning this book due to its broad topic and the broad time period it covers. It seemed it would just be a cursory review of things we've all heard before. I was pleasantly surprised at the time that McMahon spends on countries normally left out of the narrative of the US in Southeast Asia - Laos, Cambodia, Burma, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Thailand. He makes sure to cover their changing reactions and domestic political situations through the Cold War and the escalating involvement of the United States in Southeast Asia, whether its Cambodia's refusal to be a pawn in the Cold War or Indonesia's fortunate favorable shift towards the United States during the Vietnam War (83, 199). It was also easy to pick out McMahon's acknowledgment of what Schlesinger has labeled the 'imperial presidency.' The roles, beliefs, attitudes, and struggles of the administrations of FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, and Nixon. These men are given a central role in the story and the increased role of the President in the post-FDR world is evident. From Truman trying to continue the unclear policies of FDR to Eisenhower's and Kennedy's escalation of involvement in the region, Johnson's dilemmas, and Nixon's 'Vietnamization' and 'peace with honor.'

Feminisms

Hi all,

I have been thinking about our discussion of feminism, particularly that vein of it captured by Colin's question of whether it is appropriate to use the label "feminism" to refer to women's activism in the 1960s/1970s. This taps into an issue that has become more and more fascinating to me the longer I teach 20th century history: why is the civil rights movement so lionized even as it is misunderstood, while feminism is so condemned even as it is misunderstood?

Undergrads regularly describe the civil rights movement as "not radical" or "only asking for common sense things like equality" or "led by moderate and peaceful men like MLK Jr." We know there is virtually no basis in reality for these descriptions. But student voices, I think, are good bellweathers of what's on TV, the History Channel, what's said at their dinner table, etc., etc. So their words speak to the astonishing success of men like King to win the PR battle over civil rights--not just against white supremacists but against other elements of the civil rights movement and even against awareness of their own very tactical side--and also the success of conservative "color blind" language in improbably transforming King's legacy into an argument against civil rights legislation.

Then, too, undergrads also describe feminism as "radical," "man-hating," "angry," and absurd, and they seem entirely unaware of either the gender-based inequalities and traumas that gave rise to feminism, or feminists' concrete (yet limited) successes in addressing them. There were, of course, feminists who fit students' stereotypes, and not all feminist efforts were even remotely successful (or even desirable). But these hardly represent the "average" feminist, if such a creature even existed in such a diverse and wide-ranging movement. As with civil rights movement memory, students' conventional-wisdom view speaks to the vagaries of historical memory, not the historical record: first, the success of affluent white feminists in defining feminism as concerned with their issues, and second, the success of anti-feminists in associating feminism with its elites and with its most radical non-elite elements. Together this has produced a dynamic neatly opposite of what has occurred for the civil rights movement.

How does this relate to the question about who to call a "feminist"? I think--though I could be wrong--that this distorted historical memory explains the very widely held desire to "protect" women activists from being tarred by the feminist label. Why? Well, for example, "First Wave" feminists did not (mostly) call themselves feminists at all- they were suffragists, or Temperance crusaders, birth control advocates, etc., etc. But taken together they were clearly a notable social movement, and rarely is there debate over whether we can call them "first wave feminists."* Almost all social movements are warehouses of enormous internal diversity--the civil rights movement included, as we now know!--and usually we are able to settle on a general term for them, albeit with caveats and the occasional illuminating debate (see: black power). The intensity and specific shape of these debates concerning Second Wave feminism seem unique to me, however. (Maybe old fashioned debates over whether the Progressives exist are a parallel case- maybe.)

What to do, then? Given the diversity of postwar feminism, if we shouldn't call the Operation Life people "feminists," then perhaps historians shouldn't bother talking about "feminism" as much as they do--if that word can only refer to, say, affluent, white, self-identified "feminists" speaking to issues that only pertained to their own group, then it is a poor frame for understanding both women's activism, and the radical cultural, social, and legal changes that it produced in the postwar era.

My first instinct was to think of this as a loss--allowing present-day ideologies to erase historical understanding (not necessarily approval: we should understand history but make our own value judgments about it; the problem isn't criticisms of feminist values/actions, but lack of awareness that they even happened at all, or at minimum a very distorted sense of what they involved). But perhaps this is investing too much in a word. Maybe it would be better to drop "feminism" as a general label and just use it to refer to affluent white women's activism. One trouble with this, however, is translating the decision outside the academy. Understanding women's activism and its consequences seems equally important, to me, as understanding race-based civil rights activism. The easiest way to bring that story out, I have usually thought, would be to "rescue" feminism by correctly applying it to the very broad range of women (and men) activists who reshaped postwar gender relations. I think this is what people *think* they mean when they say the term, but they just mistakenly think that that very broad range is actually homogenous and narrow. But after trying unsuccessfully to do this in ten years of undergraduate teaching--after getting essay after essay repeating cultural stereotypes, blissfully free of any historical evidence or fact even after two-week-long units on feminism--perhaps it is time to give up the ghost. But the word "feminism" already has a niche in historical memory that means at least a good portion of what it is supposed to mean. Would it be better to fix what's wrong with it, or to concede the point and try to carve out a whole new niche based on some new term like "postwar women's activism"?

What do you think?

David


*There is debate, of course, over whether particular parts of these various movements deserve the label, e.g., Temperance--but this has mostly been over exactly that: whether they have "earned" the label through progressive gender beliefs and actions, not over whether they should be "tarred" by association with feminism.

Discussion Questions

Historically: In this work, Orleck presents the 1970's as a dynamic period of civil/social rights activities. Can we view the time period encompassed by this book (1970's) as the most active and fruitful for political activism and organization for poverty-stricken African American populations or the 1960's? As Dan mentions in his question, was it the unscrupulous behavior of social and political reactionaries like George Miller that drove the shift in tactics of Af/Ams toward working within the system, or were the direct actions of the 60's and early 70's a necessary progression to more mainstream political avenues?

Historiographically: Is Orleck's work limitied or strengthened by its focus on activism in a state renowned for its resistance to and distrust of the Federal government? The NV state government in most cases went to extraordinary (and oftentimes illegal) lengths to protect its sovereignty, and boldly flouted the law on many occassions - how much did this atmosphere lend more power to the story of Ruby Duncan and Operation Life?

Storming Historiography

If we are to compare this book to last week's readings there exists a stark contrast between who is responsible for change. In Storming Caesar's Palace we have a Civil Rights movement that we are accustomed to and understand. One that fits nicely with our notion of how civil rights were fought for in this country. Unlike some of the articles from last week which sat uncomfortably with a few of us in class, this weeks book seems to relax the fear of downplaying the significance of the Civil Rights movement. I suppose my comment/question is to those who were somewhat uncomfortable with last weeks readings. Do histories that situate events as "we feel they should have been" become more successful than those which go against the grain of "righteousness" perhaps?

Storming Caesars Palace

After reading this book, I asked my parents if they had ever heard about the strike in Vegas or the march. Unfortunately they never heard of it. That was kind of disappointing. So I couldn't help but wonder if this was really a well-known event or if my parents were just clueless teenagers. Regardless, I found this book to be really interesting. I had never heard of the march prior to this book and was actually surprised when she talked about the black entertainers being subjected to racism and prejudice as well. Maybe I was naive to think that they'd be treated better than the common black person, but the section in Chapter 2 about Sammy Davis Jr. and other black entertainers having to cross the "concrete curtain" to eat, drink, and sleep, really surprised me. There were also a lot of parallels with Sugrue's Origins of the Urban Crisis when Orleck discussed the division of the city and the poor housing in the West Side. Overall I thought this was a very interesting read.

Storming Caesars Salad

1. Last week (I think) we touched on the question of whether scholarship can help change things, and I was reminded of it when Orleck discussed the influence of Pat Moynihan (and others) in creating the image of the pathological black welfare mother. Maybe I'm missing it, but it seems like scholars are much less connected to public life than they were in the past. Maybe the rise of thinktanks has taken thought leadership away from academics? Or maybe folks were scared away from playing that role by the poisonous impact that Moynihan's bullshit had? I dunno.

2. Did it seem that Orleck was trying to shield white women from responsibility for racial violence in the south in the first chapter? Seemed kind of icky to me.

3. Small point: why didn't Orleck mention Tom Hayden when she lists the celebrity marchers? (155) If Dave Dellinger rates a mention, surely his Chicago 8 compadre should, too. Heck, Hayden is right there on the cover, looking dapper in a corduroy jacket.

4. No point: The only monster here is the gambling monster that has enslaved your mother! I call him Gamblor, and it's time to snatch your mother from his neon claws!

Storming Ceasars Palace

Without a doubt, this is a story that has earned its place within the study of welfare and of civil rights. Orleck has a powerful story here which not only captures the struggles of this movement, but goes into other issues such as the challenges faced by African American women with regards to sex, the family, and the political voice of the underclass. She also helps to highlight the almost hopeless and endless cycle faced by many sharecroppers - a topic that I feel wasn't really covered in my high school classes.

There were several points during this book that really stood out to me, but one of the biggest was her idea that these uneducated women often knew how to allot funds to help their community better than state or federal agencies. Was there a real danger to them abusing their power/wasting the funds or was this group eventually get pushed out due to their political enemies? Recently, there was an article in the Buffalo News about a preacher in Buffalo who was given either state or federal funds to help build houses in the city that asked these same questions. Is there a real danger or do these people know how to improve their communities?

There are a couple of other questions that I have with regards to her methodology. Is there a problem with her relying heavily on the interviews she had with these women? It is painfully obvious that many of these women often were denied an access to a proper education so this should be taken into account for her use of these interviews... Also, she seems to make a lot of references to the present. Does she balance this or does she stray too close to the modern age with her book? Again, many of the issues she brings up have relevance to the present.

Caesars Palace

When reading this book, the first idea that came to me was about how Las Vegas looks today. Having family and a few friends that live in Vegas has allowed me to travel their numerous times and see the city not as a visitor but through the lens of people who see the day to day problems. Once one leaves the tourist destinations and the glitzy areas, an entirely different city emerges. In no other city that I have visited has the lines between the wealthy and poor residences been so drastic. Once you enter the suburbs it is impossible not to notice the amounts of large steel gates separating communities from one another. Even in areas full of mini mansions, gates make it seem as if these are warring communities not neighbors attending the same schools. Another interesting part of Vegas life is the differences in treatment one receives when they look wealthy rather then even middle class. While in Vegas with some friends I called my Uncle for advice on a good attraction or restaurant. To my surprise he insisted that he make the reservations for us, we were to show up at his house and then we would receive are instructions. When we pulled into his driveway (after first having a security guard call my uncle to make sure we were guests and not just individuals driving through a neighborhood) I was greeted with the keys to his convertible. His instructions were simple, our reservations were under his name (Dr. Lipman) and I was handed one of his business cards incase anyone were to question us. As we arrived at a hotel on the strip a man who took our name and immediately escorted us to our table in the restaurant greeted us at the valet parking. Later when I asked my uncle for an explanation, he simply replied, “one could do anything in this town with the right title and car.”

Another idea I had deals with the acceptance of Sammy Davis Jr. and Harry Belafonte. While Orleck describes how these men were influential in the desegregation of the strip, I was left wondering how they were able to create change and become accepted while other including celebrities such as the Temptations were denied access. Even today when one thinks of early Vegas, Sammy Davis Jr. is among the most well known. This made me question whether it was their skin that defined these individuals or simply how they acted. Can we consider their acceptance as something akin to what we are hearing about Obama? Was Sammy Davis considered white due to his dress, style, music, and friends? While the Temptations belonged to the African American style of Motown music, Davis Jr. walked out onstage every night in a tuxedo and sang in the style of a white man.

Finally in response to Tim’s question about the ability of the poor to affect change, I believe that we can attribute many of the problems in the book and in today’s poor areas not to the failed programs of the poor but instead the lack of support or consideration from the government. From the government making welfare programs more exclusive and underfunded to practices, which punished welfare recipients for making any extra money despite being paid well below the poverty line, it seems as if no positive response by Washington came without negative side effects. Consider all the money and time wasted looking for welfare frauds costing the government mere hundreds of dollars in each case while we continued to turn a blind eye towards the white collar crime defrauding the public of millions each year. Even in Buffalo did we make the casino and its money sucking games more accessible to the upper class or the tourists of Buffalo or to the poor of the city looking for one big payout. Even when the government did try and support positive change in poor areas their plans lacked information about how the area worked. Consider the case of the library and Operation Liberty. While the government finally decided to build a new state of the art library for this poor area, their plans did not take into account the dynamics of the neighborhood. Instead of rehabilitating the old facility and making it the cornerstone of the area they pushed for a new building to be build away from the core of the Operations work. Too often we see grass roots projects begin to enact real change before some politicians jump on the cause as a way to gain votes and the project becoming a bastardized shell of its former self.

Thoughts on Orleck

I liked Tim's question as well and I was left wondering what is the significance of the demise of Operation Life? One the one hand you can argue that these women were very successful because of the programs they implemented and the change they were able to achieve. The fact that they were able to help a lot of people was significant to them and even though the programs ended they were a positive force for along time. On the other hand the success of the community groups led to government takeover. I like the comment about the library and it seems very familiar to the types of progress that government groups consider. Would it not have helped if they spent that money on more books, classes, etc. Instead they sink a lot of money into a new facility, because without state of the art facilities we all know learning is impossible.

The other aspect of Orleck's monograph that I thought was interesting was her use of sources. A good number of her sources are from interviews. Orleck paints a sympathetic picture, does it seem that she was influenced by her connection and admiration for these women? I do not think so she seems to be impartial for most of the book. The last chapter has some sections that are a little too sympathetic but overall i think she handled the issues of this kind of work well. It will be interesting to see what others think about the use of sources.

Did they succeed?

After reading Orleck's work, it appears to me that the goals of these women were long term failure and a short term success. Today, the government's treatment and rhetoric toward the poor has not significantly changed, and all that operation life worked to create has been taken away and given to "professionals" or simply destroyed. In my opinion, Orleck even alludes to under the table arson by the local government against Operation Life. Drug abuse is said to run rampant through the community as well. This should not somehow diminish what they accomplished for themselves and the notoriety they attained, but Orleck's work seems to cast doubt on the ability for the poor to affect their own political change in the long term.

Dan's Questions

How accurate is Duncan’s statement that “the poor mothers of the Westside owe their successes to George Miller’s ‘excesses’” (228)? In other words, what was the balance between the welfare mothers’ drive for welfare rights and outside policy decisions and the socio-political climate of the time?

Given Operation Life’s focus on self-determination and the restoration of pride in the black community (276, 308, 310), along with the organization’s building of significant political power on a local and national level, can Orleck’s story be seen as a manifestation of a distinctly feminist from of Black Power?

Meredith's Discussion Questions

Historiography: Do you think that writing this book as a narrative was the most effective way to garner sympathy for welfare mothers in Las Vegas during these six decades. Do you think Orleck set out to achieve sympathy and respect for those women and this is why she approached the book in this way? Finally, do you think that the use of this many characters was helpful to the story?

History: In Orlecks' book, we see familiar names such as Sinatra, Martin, and Davis. How much of an impact do you think they had on the actual history of desegregation of casinos and hotels and do you think it would have taken much longer without them?

Storming Ceasars Palace

Annelise Orleck brings up an interesting image in my mind during her introduction, “the profligate, promiscuous, Cadillac-driving welfare queen.” As a teacher, I have the privilege to design lessons next year regarding Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” and this book brings some issues to light that I will have to deal with. I have students whose mother’s are on welfare struggling to get by and doing the best they can. I also have students whose mother’s are on welfare and, while not driving Cadillac’s, are not doing much of anything at all. But I do like that this casts a critical eye on government treatment of the poor and I hope to use this in class.
What I like about this book is that Orleck treats her subjects as if they were any other honorable historical figure. She treats the story of these mothers with respect and admiration. This makes the work seem original. I think this helps to make the book a more intriguing read and it presents another perspective that is foreign to those of us not on welfare. I feel as though she is taking the approach that these woman are dealt impossible odds by society and government so Orleck presents this story to show that these woman just don’t sit back and take it, they actually do the only intelligent thing they can do; organize. And while Operation Life has success, it ultimately is held back by these impossible odds.
I started out thinking I was going to write that I wasn’t sure I got much worthwhile out of this book, but the more I write, the more I respect the story Orleck lays out.

Storming Caesars Palace

Annelise Orleck tells the story of a group of women fighting for welfare rights under the bright lights of Las Vegas. She counters the popular image of the welfare queen by explaining their struggle in great detail - from their inability to procure birth control, have a relationship with a man without getting their rights taken away, and their hardships in obtaining those rights in the first place. This story culminates with the establishment of their own welfare-esque organization: Operation Life, in the heart of the west side. Orleck conducted countless interviews in her research which allows for the actors to really come alive in her story. The reader becomes well acquainted with the struggles of the black family in Las Vegas, learning of the tole that long hours at the test-site took on black marriages (46). Additionally, it is not necessary for Orleck to include the comical picture of Wesley's pants ripping on the Vegas strip, but it fulfills her goal of letting the players drive her narrative and put them on center stage (160). Orleck also notes that events happening in northern cities, like Sugrue's portrayal of Detroit, were not limited to the northern United States. Railroad tracks separated the white side of town from the black side in the Mississippi delta town of Tallulah and a clinic competing with Operation Life was "nearly impossible to get to from the West Side" (7, 216). Certainly a clinic that was inaccessible to the citizens who needed it was not an adequate substitute for Operation Life. And if one pays attention to Sugrue's narrative, its geographic placement was probably not a coincidence.